# 78 FR 45376: Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-17876

## Section

- **Citation:** 78 FR 45376
- **Heading:** Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 78 / 78 FR 45376

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057; FF09M21200-134-FXMB1231099BPP0] RIN 1018-AY87 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:
Proposed rule; supplemental.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is proposing to establish the 2013-14 early-season hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the maximum number of birds that may be taken and possessed in early seasons. Early seasons may open as early as September 1, and include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of specific final seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. This proposed rule also provides the final regulatory alternatives for the 2013-14 duck hunting seasons.

DATES:
Comments: You must submit comments on the proposed early-season frameworks by August 5, 2013.
Meetings: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for late-season migratory bird hunting and the 2013 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence seasons in Alaska on July 31 and August 1, 2013. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES:
Comments: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
Meetings: The SRC will meet in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2013
On April 9, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 21200) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2013-14 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in the April 9 proposed rule.
Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under numbered headings. Those headings are:
1. Ducks A. General Harvest Strategy B. Regulatory Alternatives C. Zones and Split Seasons D. Special Seasons/Species Management i. September Teal Seasons ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons iii. Black ducks iv. Canvasbacks v. Pintails vi. Scaup vii. Mottled ducks viii. Wood ducks ix. Youth Hunt x. Mallard Management Units xi. Other 2. Sea Ducks 3. Mergansers 4. Canada Geese A. Special Seasons B. Regular Seasons C. Special Late Seasons 5. White-fronted Geese 6. Brant 7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese 8. Swans 9. Sandhill Cranes 10. Coots 11. Moorhens and Gallinules 12. Rails 13. Snipe 14. Woodcock 15. Band-tailed Pigeons 16. Doves 17. Alaska 18. Hawaii 19. Puerto Rico 20. Virgin Islands 21. Falconry 22. Other Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
On June 14, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 35844) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 14 supplement also provided detailed information on the 2013-14 regulatory schedule and announced the SRC and Flyway Council meetings.
This document, the third in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations, deals specifically with proposed frameworks for early-season regulations and the regulatory alternatives for the 2013-14 duck hunting seasons. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the 2013-14 season.
We have considered all pertinent comments received through June 22, 2013, on the April 9 and June 14, 2013, rulemaking documents in developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain early-season regulations are provided for public comment. Comment periods are specified above under DATES . We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons in the Federal Register on or about August 16, 2013.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
Participants at the June 19-20, 2013, meetings reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 2013-14 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.
Participants at the previously announced July 31-August 1, 2013, meetings will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop
Population Status and Harvest
The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of migratory shore and upland game birds excerpted from various reports. For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.
Waterfowl Breeding and Habitat Survey
Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring to estimate the size of waterfowl breeding populations and to evaluate the conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and ground crews and encompass principal breeding areas of North America, covering an area over 2.0 million square miles. The traditional survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and the northcentral United States, and includes approximately 1.3 million square miles. The eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, New York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million square miles.
Overall, despite a delayed spring, habitat conditions during the 2013 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey were improved or similar to last year in many areas due to abundant winter or spring precipitation, with the exception of eastern Canada, the northeast United States, and portions of Montana and the Dakotas. The total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and United States combined) was 6.9±0.2 million. This was 24 percent higher than the 2012 estimate of 5.5±0.2 million ponds, and 35 percent higher than the long-term average (1974-2012) of 5.1±0.03 million ponds.
Traditional Survey Area (U.S. and Canadian Prairies and Parklands)
Spring was much delayed across the traditional survey area. Extreme southern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, and North Dakota received abundant spring rainfall; most of this moisture came too late for the majority of waterfowl breeding this year, but could benefit habitats into 2014. The majority of the Canadian prairies had above-average winter precipitation; however, a poor frost seal was produced and little runoff was observed. The Parklands have improved from 2012, and the boreal region has benefitted from average annual precipitation. Most of the Canadian portion of the traditional survey area was rated as good or excellent this year, in contrast to the dry conditions last year across northern Saskatchewan and Alberta. The 2013 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 4.6±0.2 million. This was 17 percent higher than last year's estimate (3.9±0.1 million) and 32 percent higher than the 1961-2012 average (3.5±0.03 million).
The U.S. prairies received record-breaking snowfall in April; however, below-average early spring precipitation in parts of Montana and the eastern Dakotas resulted in fair to poor habitat conditions. The 2013 estimate of ponds in the north-central United States was 2.3±0.1 million, which was 41 percent higher than last year's estimate (1.7±0.1 million) and 42 percent higher than the 1974-2012 average (1.7±0.02 million).
Eastern Survey Area
Spring temperatures in the eastern survey area were closer to normal than in the traditional survey area. Winter precipitation in southwestern Ontario, southern Quebec, and most of the Maritimes was below average. Eastern Canada experienced near record low winter precipitation but improved to the north and east into the Maritimes. Much of eastern Canada experienced excessive late-spring rains, which may have inhibited waterfowl production. Habitat conditions ranged from fair, in Maine and the southern Maritimes, to good in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Status of Teal
The estimate of blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area is 7.7 million. This count represents a 16 percent decrease from 2012, and is 60 percent above the 1955-2012 average.
Sandhill Cranes
Compared to increases recorded in the 1970s, annual indices to abundance of the Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of sandhill cranes have been relatively stable since the early 1980s. The preliminary spring 2013 index for sandhill cranes in the Central Platte River Valley (CPRV), Nebraska, uncorrected for visibility bias, was 756,217 birds. This estimate is significantly higher than the previous 5 years, which is likely due to late winter weather in North and South Dakota delaying any migration from the CPRV. The photo-corrected, 3-year average for 2010-12 was 504,658, which is above the established population-objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes. All Central Flyway States, except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting in portions of their States during 2012-13. An estimated 7,239 hunters participated in these seasons, which was 7 percent lower than the number that participated in the previous season. Hunters harvested 14,887 MCP cranes in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway during the 2012-13 seasons, which was 3 percent lower than the harvest for the previous year and 2 percent higher than the long-term average. The retrieved harvest of MCP cranes in hunt areas outside of the Central Flyway (Arizona, Pacific Flyway portion of New Mexico, Minnesota, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico combined) was 9,683 during 2012-13. The preliminary estimate for the North American MCP sport harvest, including crippling losses, was 27,966 birds, which was a 16 percent decrease from the previous year's estimate. The long-term (1982-2012) trends for the MCP indicate that harvest has been increasing at a higher rate than population growth.
The fall 2012 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) resulted in a count of 15,417 cranes. The 3-year average was 17,992 sandhill cranes, which is within the established population objective of 17,000-21,000 for the RMP. Hunting seasons during 2012-13 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming resulted in a harvest of 1,080 RMP cranes, an 11 percent decrease from the previous year's harvest.
The Lower Colorado River Valley Population (LCRVP) survey results indicate a 16 percent increase from 2,646 birds in 2012, to 3,078 birds in 2013. The 3-year average is 2,713 LCRVP cranes, which is above the population objective of 2,500.
The Eastern Population (EP) sandhill crane fall survey index (87,796) increased by 21 percent in 2012, and in Kentucky's second hunting season 92 cranes were harvested, up from 50 cranes in the inaugural season.
Woodcock
Singing-ground and Wing-collection Surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the American woodcock ( Scolopax minor ). The Singing-ground Survey is intended to measure long-term changes in woodcock population levels. Singing-ground Survey data for 2013 indicate that the
The Wing-collection Survey provides an index to recruitment. Wing-collection Survey data indicate that the 2012 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.65 immatures per adult female) was 1.9 percent less than the 2011 index, and 0.8 percent greater than the long-term (1963-2011) average. The recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.66 immatures per adult female) was 8.0 percent greater than the 2011 index and 5.7 percent greater than the long-term (1963-2011) average.
Band-Tailed Pigeons
Two subspecies of band-tailed pigeon occur north of Mexico, and are managed as two separate populations: Interior and Pacific Coast. Information on the abundance and harvest of band-tailed pigeons is collected annually in the United States and British Columbia. Abundance information comes from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and the Mineral Site Survey (MSS, specific to the Pacific Coast Population). Harvest and hunter participation are estimated from the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP). The BBS provided evidence that the abundance of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons decreased (−2.0 percent per year) over the long term (1968-2012). Trends in abundance during the recent 10- and 5-year periods were inconclusive. The MSS, however, provided some evidence that abundance decreased during the recent 9-year (−4.7 percent per year) and 5-year (−4.0 percent per year) periods, but results were inconclusive. An estimated 3,900 hunters harvested 10,900 birds in 2012.
For Interior band-tailed pigeons, the BBS provided evidence that abundance decreased (−5.1 percent per year) over the long term (1968-2012). Trends in abundance during the recent 10- and 5-year periods were inconclusive. An estimated 1,400 hunters harvested 2,900 birds in 2012.
Mourning Doves
We annually summarize information collected in the United States on survival, recruitment, abundance and harvest of mourning doves. We report on trends in the number of doves heard per route from the Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS), doves seen per route from the CCS, birds heard and seen per route from the all-bird BBS, and provide absolute abundance estimates based on band recovery and harvest data. Harvest and hunter participation are estimated from the HIP.
The CCS-heard data suggested that abundance of doves decreased in all three dove management units (Eastern [EMU], Central [CMU], and Western [WMU]) over the long term (1966-2013); within the EMU, however, there is evidence that abundance decreased in hunt States but increased in non-hunt States. In the recent 10 years, there was no evidence for a change in mourning dove abundance in the EMU, but there was evidence of a decline in the CMU and WMU. Over the most recent two years, there was no evidence for a change in abundance in any of the management units. Over the long term, trends based on CCS-heard and CCS-seen data were consistent in the CMU and WMU, but inconsistent in the EMU; CCS-seen data indicated that abundance increased in the EMU. BBS data suggested that the abundance of mourning doves over the long-term increased in the EMU and decreased in the CMU and WMU. Thus, over the long term, the three data sets provided consistent results for the CMU and WMU but not the EMU.
Estimates of absolute abundance are available only since 2003, and indicate that there are about 349 million doves in the United States, and annual abundance during the recent 5 years appears stationary in the EMU and WMU, but may be declining in the CMU. However, abundance appeared to increase between 2011 and 2012 in the CMU and WMU. Based on a composite trend (weighted trend estimate using information from the CCS, BBS, and absolute abundance), the EMU and WMU populations were stationary over the previous 5 and 10 years, whereas the population in the CMU declined.
Current (2012) HIP estimates for mourning dove total harvest, active hunters, and total days afield in the U.S. were 14,490,800 birds, 828,900 hunters, and 2,538,000 days afield. Harvest and hunter participation at the unit level were: EMU, 6,279,900 birds, 349,600 hunters, and 1,015,600 days afield; CMU, 6,361,600 birds, 338,700 hunters, and 1,108,700 days afield; and WMU, 1,849,400 birds, 140,700 hunters, and 413,700 days afield.
White-Winged Doves
Two states harbor substantial populations of white-winged dove: Arizona and Texas. California and New Mexico also have substantial but smaller populations. Based on the preliminary HIP report for 2012, white-winged doves were harvested in 22 additional states. The Arizona Game and Fish Department monitors white-winged dove populations by means of a CCS to provide an annual index to population size. It runs concurrently with the Service's Mourning Dove CCS. The index of mean number of white-winged doves heard per route from this survey peaked at 52.3 in 1968, but then declined until about 2000. The index had stabilized at around 25 doves per route in the last few years; however, for 2013, the mean number of doves heard per route was 16.8. Harvest of white-winged doves in Arizona peaked in the late 1960s at approximately 740,000 birds, and has since declined and stabilized at around 100,000 birds; the preliminary 2012 HIP estimate of harvest was 86,000 birds.
In Texas, white-winged doves continue to expand their breeding range. Nesting by white-winged doves has been recorded in most counties, with new colonies recently found in east Texas. Nesting is essentially confined to urban areas, but appears to be expanding to exurban areas. Concomitant with this range expansion has been a continuing increase in white-winged dove abundance. A new distance-based sampling protocol was implemented for Central and South Texas in 2007, and has been expanded each year. In 2010, 4,650 points were surveyed statewide and the urban population of breeding white-winged doves was estimated at 4.6 million. Additionally, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has an operational white-winged dove banding program and has banded 52,001 white-winged doves from 2006 to 2010. The estimated harvest of white-wings in Texas in the 2012 season was 1,414,800 birds. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department continues to work to improve the scientific basis for management of white-winged doves.
In California, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas BBS data indicate an increasing trend in the population indices between 1966 and 2011. In Arizona BBS data indicate population indices were stationary between 1966 and 2011. According to HIP surveys, the preliminary harvest estimates for the
White-Tipped Doves
White-tipped doves occur primarily south of the United States-Mexico border; however, the species does occur in Texas. Monitoring information is presently limited. White-tipped doves are believed to be maintaining a relatively stable population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Distance-based sampling procedures implemented in Texas are also providing limited information on white-tipped dove abundance. Texas is working to improve the sampling frame to include the rural Rio Grande corridor in order to improve the utility of population indices. Annual estimates for white-tipped dove harvest in Texas average between 3,000 and 4,000 birds.
Review of Public Comments
The preliminary proposed rulemaking (April 9 Federal Register ) opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting regulations and announced the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2013-14 duck hunting season. Comments concerning early-season issues and the proposed alternatives are summarized below and numbered in the order used in the April 9 Federal Register document. Only the numbered items pertaining to early-seasons issues and the proposed regulatory alternatives for which we received written comments are included. Consequently, the issues do not follow in consecutive numerical or alphabetical order.
We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are summarized below.
We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items in the April 9 Federal Register document.
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season lengths, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published issues/discussions, and only those containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
A. General Harvest Strategy
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.
Service Response: As we stated in the April 9 Federal Register , we intend to continue use of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2013-14 season. AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts, as well as providing a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. The current AHM protocol is used to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels based on the population status of mallards and their breeding habitat (i.e., abundance of ponds) (special hunting restrictions are enacted for certain species, such as canvasbacks, black ducks, scaup, and pintails).
Unfortunately, this year a mechanical issue with the Service aircraft normally used in the Eastern Survey Area of the May Breeding Population and Habitat Survey prohibited the use of those aircraft to conduct this year's survey. Lack of reliable data from Canadian survey strata (51-54, 56) precludes a reliable estimate of the Eastern mallard breeding population for 2013. As a result, an observed 2013 breeding population (BPOP) estimate will not be available for updating model weights and deriving the 2013 harvest policy. Therefore, we propose to predict the 2013 BPOP size based on the 2012 BPOP estimate and 2012 model weights, the 2012-13 harvest rate, and the current model set. That predicted value will be used in place of the observed value for this year, and that value will be compared with last year's (2012) AHM harvest policy matrix to determine the optimal regulatory alternative for the 2013-14 regular duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway. Further details on these proposed technical changes will be detailed in the forthcoming AHM report for the 2013 season.
Regarding the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation for a one-step constraint, we have repeatedly stated over the past several years that we believe that the new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the migratory bird hunting program (see National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) section) is the appropriate venue for considering such changes in a more comprehensive manner that involves input from all Flyways. With the May 24, 2013, release of the new SEIS and the associated Record of Decision (RoD) contained in this rule, we believe that any recommendations for changes such as the inclusion of a one-step constraint should be considered within the context of the process that is being used to revise current AHM protocols. As AHM decision-making frameworks are modified, regulatory alternatives should be crafted by the Flyways in the context of those changes, including revised harvest management objectives and the demographic models that predict changes in waterfowl status due to those regulations.
We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways during the 2013-14 season after survey information becomes available later this summer. More information on AHM is located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/AHM/AHM-intro.htm.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2012-13.
Service Response: The regulatory alternatives proposed in the April 9 Federal Register will be used for the 2013-14 hunting season (see accompanying table at the end of this proposed rule for specifics). In 2005, the AHM regulatory alternatives were modified to consist only of the maximum season lengths, framework dates, and bag limits for total ducks and mallards. Restrictions for certain species within these frameworks that are not covered by existing harvest strategies will be addressed during the late-season regulations process. For those species with specific harvest strategies (canvasbacks, pintails, black ducks, and scaup), those strategies will again be used for the 2013-14 hunting season.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. Special Teal Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils recommended that the daily bag limit be increased from 4 to 6 teal in the aggregate during the Special September teal season. The Atlantic Flyway Council also recommended that we allow Maryland to adjust existing shooting hours during the Special September teal season from sunrise to one-half hour before sunrise on an experimental basis during 2013-15 seasons.
Service Response: We appreciate the long-standing interest by the Flyway Councils to pursue additional teal harvest opportunity. With this interest in mind, in 2009, the Flyways and Service began to assess the collective results of all teal harvest, including harvest during special September seasons. The Teal Harvest Potential Working Group conducted this assessment work, which included a thorough assessment of the harvest potential for both blue-winged and green-winged teal, as well as an assessment of the impacts of current special September seasons on these two species. Cinnamon teal were subsequently included in this assessment.
In the April 9, 2013, Federal Register , we stated that the final report of the Teal Harvest Potential Working Group indicated that additional opportunity could be provided for blue-winged teal and green-winged teal. Therefore, we support recommendations from the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils that the daily bag limit be increased from 4 to 6 teal in the aggregate during the Special September teal season in 2013-14. However, we will not support additional changes to the structure of the September teal season until specific management objectives for teal have been articulated and a comprehensive, cross-flyway approach to developing and evaluating other potential avenues by which additional teal harvest opportunity can be provided has been completed. We recognize this comprehensive approach may include addition of new hunting seasons (e.g., September teal seasons in northern States) as well as expanded hunting opportunities (e.g., season lengths, bag limits) in States with existing teal seasons. In order to assess the overall effects of these changes, an evaluation plan must be developed that includes specific objectives and is tailored to appropriately address concerns about potential impacts resulting from the type of opportunity offered. We outlined guidance for conducting special season evaluations in SEIS 88 (Controlled Use of Special Regulations, pp 82-83) which should be used when developing the plan. We recognize that additional technical and coordination work will need to be accomplished to complete this task, thus, a small technical group comprised of members from the Flyway Councils and Service should be convened. We look forward to working with the Flyway Councils in undertaking the technical work needed to develop regulatory proposals, and would expect a progress report on such work at the February 2014 Service Regulations Committee meeting.
In the interest of guiding State and Federal workloads and facilitating a timely process for providing additional teal harvest opportunity, we provide the following initial considerations. First, we have stated that the primary focus of special season regulations is underutilized species and/or stocks whose migration and distribution provide opportunities outside the time period in which regular seasons are held, and where such harvest can occur without appreciable impacts to non-target species (SEIS 2013). Although the Teal Harvest Potential Working Group's report documented the existence of additional blue-winged and green-winged teal harvest opportunity, we believe the unique migration behavior of blue-winged teal presents the opportunity to isolate only that species both temporally and geographically, consistent with the intent of special regulations. Consequently, regulatory proposals to increase teal harvest should direct harvest primarily at blue-winged teal.
Second, previous alternatives to provide additional teal harvest opportunities have included bonus teal, Special September duck seasons in Iowa, and Special September teal/wood duck seasons. Following implementation of the SEIS 88 regarding the sport hunting of migratory birds, all of these efforts were reviewed. Assessments of special hunting opportunities, including September teal seasons and bonus teal bags, were conducted. The results of these reviews indicated that the September teal seasons could adequately be assessed regarding their effects on migratory birds, but that bonus teal regulations could not. Thus, in the early 1990s, bonus teal bags were no longer offered in the annual duck regulations frameworks. With regard to Special September duck seasons, we have previously stated that mixed-species special seasons (as defined in the context of SEIS 88) are not a preferred management approach, and that we do not wish to entertain refinements to this season or foster expansions of this type of season into other States (August 29, 1996, 61 FR 45838). Special September teal/wood duck seasons in Florida, Tennessee and Kentucky have been provided in lieu of Special September teal seasons and our preference at this time is to maintain that policy. If Flyway Councils wish to pursue these regulatory approaches to providing additional teal harvest opportunity, we request that they provide compelling information as to why such policies and approaches should be reinstated (i.e., bonus teal) or expanded/modified (i.e., September duck seasons or September teal/wood duck seasons).
A copy of the teal working group's final report is available on our Web site at either http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at http://www.regulations.gov.
Regarding the regulations for this year, utilizing the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy, this year's estimate of 7.7 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area indicates that a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways is appropriate for 2013.
Regarding the Atlantic Flyway Council's request to allow Maryland to adjust existing shooting hours during the Special September teal season from sunrise to sunset to one-half hour before sunrise to sunset on an experimental basis, we agree. Since the inception of Maryland's September teal season in 1998, Maryland has utilized shooting hours of sunrise to sunset. Maryland has agreed to conduct hunter performance surveys to assess the impacts of the expanded shooting hours on non-target waterfowl species. The hunter performance survey and assessment criteria will be specified in an agreement between Maryland and the Service.
2. Sea Ducks
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the Service amend the annual waterfowl hunting regulations at 50 CFR 20.105 to allow the shooting of crippled waterfowl from a motorboat under power in New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in those areas described, delineated, and designated in their respective hunting regulations as special sea duck hunting areas.
Service Response: We concur with the Atlantic Flyway's recommendation and
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended increasing the daily bag limit in Minnesota from 5 geese to 10 geese during the special September season in certain areas of the State. The Council further recommended that there be no possession limits for Canada geese in either special seasons or regular seasons (see 22. Other for further discussion on possession limits).
Service Response: We agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's request to increase the Canada goose daily bag limit within certain areas that have experienced higher levels of agricultural depredations in Minnesota. The Special Early Canada Goose hunting season is generally designed to reduce or control overabundant resident Canada geese populations. Increasing the daily bag limit from 5 to 10 geese in certain areas may help reduce or control existing high populations of resident Canada geese and associated agricultural depredation problems. Nest and egg permits, airport removal, trap and euthanize, and agricultural shooting permits have all been used in efforts to address damage caused by overabundant Canada geese. In 2012, a record number of shooting permits (234) were issued to landowners dealing with excessive numbers of Canada geese causing agricultural damage.
The breeding population of resident Canada geese in Minnesota has averaged 332,000 Canada geese, since 2001, which is 33 percent higher than the goal of 250,000 Canada geese. In 2012, the breeding population estimate was 434,000 Canada geese, which was the highest estimate on record and 74 percent above the population goal. Annual harvest of Canada geese in Minnesota has averaged 220,000 since 2001, with harvest during the September season averaging 98,000 Canada geese. Further, Minnesota has used a variety of methods to increase the harvest of resident Canada geese, including an expanded September season (Sept. 1 through 22) and expanded opportunity during the regular season.
Bag limits for Canada geese above 5 per day during the September season have not yet been used in the Mississippi Flyway during September seasons. Based on bag frequency data from Atlantic Flyway States that have utilized Canada goose daily bag limits of 15 during September seasons, increasing the daily bag limit from 5 to 10 is expected to increase Canada goose harvest approximately 16 percent during the September season. Thus, a daily bag limit of 10 geese implemented Statewide in Minnesota during the September season would be expected to increase the annual harvest from 98,000 to 114,000 during the September season.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose seasons in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2013, and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan be September 11, 2013. The Council further recommended that there be no possession limits for Canada geese throughout the Flyway (see 22. Other for further discussion on possession limits).
Service Response: We concur with recommended framework opening dates. Michigan, beginning in 1998, and Wisconsin, beginning in 1989, have opened their regular Canada goose seasons prior to the Flyway-wide framework opening date to address resident goose management concerns in these States. As we have previously stated (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008), we agree with the objective to increase harvest pressure on resident Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway and will continue to consider the opening dates in both States as exceptions to the general Flyway opening date, to be reconsidered annually. The framework closing date for the early goose season in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is September 10. By changing the framework opening date for the regular season to September 11 in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan there will be no need to close goose hunting in that area for 5 days and thus lose the ability to maintain harvest pressure on resident Canada geese. We note that the most recent resident Canada goose estimate for the Mississippi Flyway was a record high 1,767,900 geese during the spring of 2012, 8 percent higher than the 2011 estimate of 1,629,800 geese, and well above the Flyway's population goal of 1.18 to 1.40 million birds. See 23. Other for further discussion on possession limits.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended implementation of a 3-year, experimental 60-day sandhill crane season in Tennessee beginning in the 2013-14 season.
The Central Flyway Council recommended increasing the season length in North Dakota's eastern sandhill crane hunting zone (Area 2) from 37 to 58 days in length.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommend using the 2013 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of 771 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 3-year running average of fall population estimates for 2010-12.
Service Response: We concur with the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation concerning an experimental season in Tennessee. We note that a management plan for the Eastern Population of sandhill cranes was approved by the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils in 2010. The plan contained provisions and guidelines for establishing hunting seasons in the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway States if the fall population was above a minimum threshold of 30,000 cranes. The management plan also sets an overall harvest objective for an individual State to be no more than 10 percent of the 5-year average peak population estimate in that State. Since Tennessee's 5-year average peak population count is 23,334 cranes, the State's maximum allowable harvest would be 2,333 cranes. Tennessee's proposed experimental season would limit the number of crane hunters to 775 with each hunter receiving 3 tags for a maximum allowed harvest of 2,325 cranes. Given Tennessee's proposed harvest monitoring system, the maximum allowed harvest of 2,333 cranes cannot be exceeded.
Additionally, we prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) on the hunting of EP sandhill cranes in Tennessee as allowed under the management plan. A copy of the draft EA and specifics of the two alternatives we analyzed can be found on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at http://www.regulations.gov. Our EA outlines two different approaches for assessing the ability of the EP crane population to withstand the level of harvest contained in EP management plan: (1) The potential biological removal allowance method; and (2) a simple population
The proposed crane hunt in Tennessee would begin in early December and continue until late January. These proposed season dates would begin approximately 2 to 3 weeks after whooping cranes are normally migrating through Tennessee and would reduce the likelihood that sandhill crane hunters would encounter whooping cranes. We further note that whooping cranes that migrate through Tennessee are part of the experimental nonessential population of whooping cranes (NEP). In 2001, the Service announced its intent to reintroduce whooping cranes ( Grus americana ) into historic habitat in the eastern United States with the intent to establish a migratory flock that would summer and breed in Wisconsin, and winter in west-central Florida (66 FR 14107, March 9, 2001). We designated this reintroduced population as an NEP according to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (66 FR 33903, June 26, 2001). Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway States within the NEP area maintain their management prerogatives regarding the whooping crane. They are not directed by the reintroduction program to take any specific actions to provide any special protective measures, nor are they prevented from imposing restrictions under State law, such as protective designations, and area closures.
We also support the Central Flyway Council's recommendation to increase the season length for midcontinent sandhill cranes in the eastern zone of North Dakota (Area 2). However, we believe additional information recently published on the demographics of this population should be incorporated into a revised management plan, and that the revised plan should include more specificity regarding how harvest opportunities should be expanded and restricted based on population status and harvest. Such a process is essential to successful, collaborative management of shared populations by the Service and the Flyways. We do not want to address regulatory changes in an incremental manner and believe codifying specifically in a management plan how such changes in harvest opportunities will occur would achieve that end.
We also agree with the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils' recommendations on the RMP sandhill crane harvest allocation of 771 birds for the 2013-14 season, as outlined in the RMP sandhill crane management plan's harvest allocation formula. The objective for RMP sandhill cranes is to manage for a stable population index of 17,000-21,000 cranes determined by an average of the three most recent, reliable September (fall pre-migration) surveys. Additionally, the RMP management plan allows for the regulated harvest of cranes when the 3-year average of the population indices exceeds 15,000 cranes. In 2012, 15,417 cranes were counted in the September survey, a decrease from the previous year's count of 17,494 birds. The most recent 3-year average for the RMP sandhill crane fall index is 17,992, a decrease from the previous 3-year average of 19,626.
14. Woodcock
In 2011, we implemented an interim harvest strategy for woodcock for a period of 5 years (2011-15) (76 FR 19876, April 8, 2011). The interim harvest strategy provides a transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock season length and bag limit while we work to improve monitoring and assessment protocols for this species. Utilizing the criteria developed for the interim strategy, the 3-year average for the Singing Ground Survey indices and associated confidence intervals fall within the “moderate package” for both the Eastern and Central Management Regions. As such, a “moderate season” for both management regions for the 2013-14 woodcock hunting season is appropriate for 2013. Specifics of the interim harvest strategy can be found at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.
15. Band-Tailed Pigeons
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended reducing the daily bag limit from 5 to 2 pigeons for the Interior Population.
Service Response: We have a long-standing practice of giving considerable deference to harvest strategies developed in cooperative Flyway management plans. However, a harvest strategy does not exist for the Interior Population of band-tailed pigeons even though the development of one was identified as a high priority when the management plan was adopted in 2001. Because the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation is not supported by the Central Flyway at this time, we recommend that the two Flyway Councils discuss this issue and advise us of the results of these deliberations in their respective recommendation packages from their meetings next March. It is our desire to see adoption of a mutually acceptable harvest strategy for this population as soon as possible.
16. Doves
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States within the Eastern Management Unit population of mourning doves resulting in a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit. The daily bag limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination.
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the standard (or “moderate”) season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2013-14 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit. The Central Flyway Council previously recommended that the Special White-winged Dove Area be expanded to Interstate Highway 37 in the 2013-14 season.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of doves, which represents no change from last year's frameworks.
The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils also recommended that the present interim mourning dove harvest strategy be replaced by a new national mourning dove harvest strategy for implementation beginning with the 2014-15 season. The new strategy uses a discrete logistic growth model based on information derived from the banding program, the Harvest Information Program, and the mourning dove parts collection survey to predict mourning dove population size in a Bayesian statistical framework. The method is similar to other migratory bird strategies already in place and
Service Response: In 2008, we accepted and endorsed the interim harvest strategies for the Central, Eastern, and Western Management Units (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008). As we stated then, the interim mourning dove harvest strategies are a step towards implementing the Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Plan (Plan) that was approved by all four Flyway Councils in 2003. The Plan represents a new, more informed means of decision-making for dove harvest management besides relying solely on traditional roadside counts of mourning doves as indicators of population trend. However, recognizing that a more comprehensive, national approach would take time to develop, we requested the development of interim harvest strategies, by management unit, until the elements of the Plan can be fully implemented. In 2009, the interim harvest strategies were successfully employed and implemented in all three Management Units (74 FR 36870, July 24, 2009).
We concur with the Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils' recommendations that the National mourning dove harvest strategy, as developed by the Mourning Dove Task Force, be adopted this year for implementation in 2014-15 hunting season. This strategy would replace the Interim Harvest Strategies that have been in place since 2009. While we appreciate the Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils' recommendations supporting implementation of the National mourning dove harvest, we do not support the changes proposed by the Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils specific to the Central Management Unit. More specifically, we do not support the reduced closure threshold, using a running 3-year average of abundance in assessing regulatory change, and holding regulations constant for at least 3 years. We support continued development and further evaluation of the modifications proposed by the Mississippi and Central Flyways, including appropriate closure levels for each management unit based on objective biological criteria. The Mourning Dove Task Force is a useful venue for developing these issues for future consideration and potential modification to the National Strategy.
This year, based on the interim harvest strategies and current population status, we agree with the recommended selection of the “moderate” season frameworks for doves in the Eastern, Central, and Western Management Units.
Regarding the Central Flyway Council's recommendation to expand the Special White-winged Dove Area in Texas, we expressed our support for this recommendation last year and addressed it in the August 30, 2012, Federal Register (77 FR 53118). The then-approved changes take effect this season.
22. Other
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended increasing the possession limits for sora and Virginia rails from 1 to 3 times the aggregate daily bag limit, consistent with the Council's proposed bag limits for all other migratory game birds during normal established hunting seasons.
The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended increasing the possession limit from 2 to 3 times the daily bag limit for doves.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended increasing the possession limit from 2 to 3 times the daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons; special September Canada goose seasons; snipe; falconry; and Alaska seasons for brant, sandhill cranes, and geese (except dusky Canada geese).
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service increase the possession limit from 2 times to 3 times the daily bag limit for all migratory game bird species and seasons except for Canada geese, where they recommended that there be no possession limit, or other overabundant species for which no current possession limits are currently assigned (e.g., light geese), where there would continue to be no possession limits. The Council also recommended increasing the possession limits for sora and Virginia rails from 1 to 3 times the aggregate daily bag limit, consistent with other possession limit recommendations, and no change for those species that currently have permit hunts (e.g., cranes and swans). The Council recommends these changes be implemented beginning in the 2013-14 season. New and/or experimental seasons could have different possession limits if justified. The Council further recommended that possession limits not apply at one's personal permanent residence and specifically recommended language to modify 50 CFR 20.39 to do so.
Lastly, the Central Flyway Council recommended that the Service develop a mechanism that allows not for profit community food distribution centers to exceed possession limits for Canada geese during the regular hunting season.
Service Response: The issue of possession limits was first raised by the Flyway Councils in the summer of 2010. At that time, we stated that we were generally supportive of the Flyways' interest in increasing the possession limits for migratory game birds and appreciated the discussions to frame this important issue (75 FR 58250, September 23, 2010). We also stated that we believed there were many unanswered questions regarding how this interest could be fully articulated in a proposal that satisfies the harvest management community, while fostering the support of the law enforcement community and informing the general hunting public. Thus, we proposed the creation of a cross-agency Working Group, chaired by the Service, and comprised of staff from the Service's Migratory Bird Program, State Wildlife Agency representatives, and Federal and State law enforcement staff, to develop a recommendation that fully articulates a potential change in possession limits. This effort would include a discussion of the current status and use of possession limits, which populations and/or species/species groups should not be included in any proposed modification of possession limits, potential law enforcement issues, and a reasonable timeline for the implementation of any such proposed changes.
After discussions last year at the January SRC meeting, and March and July Flyway Council meetings, the Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended that the Service increase the possession limit from 2 times to 3 times the daily bag limit for all migratory game bird species and seasons except for those species that currently have possession limits of less than 2 times the daily bag limit (e.g., some rail species), for permit hunts (e.g., cranes and swans), and for overabundant species for which no current possession limits are assigned (e.g., light geese), beginning in the 2013-14 season (77 FR 58444; September 20, 2012). These recommendations from the Councils were one such outgrowth of the efforts started in 2010. With the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation and
Additionally, as we discussed in the April 9 and June 14 proposed rules, when our initial review of possession limits was instituted in 2010, we also realized that a review of possession limits could not be adequately conducted without expanding the initial review to include other possession-related regulations. In particular, it was our belief that any potential increase in the possession limits should be done in concert with a review and update of the wanton waste regulations in 50 CFR 20.25. We believed it prudent to review some of the long-standing sources of confusion (for both hunters and law enforcement) regarding wanton waste. A review of the current Federal wanton waste regulations, along with various State wanton waste regulations, has been recently completed, and we anticipate publishing a proposed rule this summer to revise 50 CFR 20.25.
Lastly, we recognize that there are other important issues surrounding possession that need to be reviewed, such as termination of possession (as recommended by the Mississippi Flyway Council). However, that issue is a much larger and more complex review than the wanton waste regulations and the possession limit regulations. We anticipate starting a review of termination of possession regulations upon completion of changes to the wanton waste regulations.
Regarding the Central Flyway Council's recommendation to allow food banks to exceed possession limits for Canada geese, we note that this issue is outside the scope of this proposed rule. Such a proposal would require a change to 50 CFR 20.33 and would require a separate rulemaking process.
Public Comments
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preambles of any final rules.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The programmatic document, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 9, 1988, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2012-13,” with its corresponding August 23, 2012, finding of no significant impact. We will prepare another separate EA for 2013-14 waterfowl hunting frameworks this summer. In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands” is available from the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .
In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376), the Service announced its intent to develop a new supplemental environmental impact statement for the migratory bird hunting program. We held public scoping meetings in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). We published the 2010 draft supplemental environmental impact statement in the Federal Register on July 9, 2010 (73 FR 39577). The public comment period closed on March 26, 2011. On May 31, 2013, we published a notice of availability in the Federal Register (78 FR 32686) announcing a Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds. The programmatic document was filed with the EPA on May 24, 2013, pursuant to the NEPA. The public review period ended July 1, 2013.
Below is the Service's Record of Decision (RoD) for the migratory bird hunting program, prepared pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2. We have provided it here in its entirety. This RoD was developed by the Service in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of this RoD is to document the Service's decision for the selection of an alternative for the issuance of annual regulations permitting the hunting of migratory birds. Alternatives have been fully described and evaluated in the May 2013 Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds.
This RoD is intended to: (a) State the Service's decision, present the rationale for its selection, and describe its implementation; (b) identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision; and (c) state whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementation of the selected alternative have been adopted (40 CFR 1505.2).
Record of Decision—Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds
Through this Record of Decision (RoD), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) selects alternatives for the seven regulatory components considered for establishing annual regulations for the hunting of migratory birds in the United States. This RoD includes brief summaries of the alternatives considered, the public involvement process, and the rationale for selecting an alternative for each of the seven regulatory components considered, as described in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), for issuance of annual migratory bird hunting regulations. In all cases, the “preferred” alternative is also the environmentally preferred one.
Description of the Seven Regulatory Components and Alternatives Considered Under Each
1. Schedule and Timing of the General Regulatory Process
Promulgation of annual hunting regulations relies on a well-defined process of monitoring, data collection, and scientific assessment. At key points during that process, Flyway Technical Committees, Flyway Councils, and the public review and provide valuable input on technical assessments or other documents related to proposed regulatory frameworks. The Service then finalizes the frameworks and forwards them to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for final approval. After approval, each State selects its seasons, usually following its own schedule of public hearings and other deliberations. After State selections are completed, the Service adopts them as Federal regulations by publication in the Federal Register .
Alternative 1: ( no change alternative ). Promulgate annual regulations using separate early and late season processes based on previous or current year biological information and established harvest strategies.
Alternative 2: ( preferred alternative ). Promulgate annual regulations using a single process for early and late seasons based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and established harvest strategies.
Alternative 3: Promulgate biennial (or longer) regulations using separate early and late season processes.
Alternative 4: Promulgate biennial (or longer) regulations using a single process for early and late seasons.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 2 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 2 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the 2015-16 regulations cycle.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The Service concludes that the impact of Alternative 2 on hunted populations of migratory birds compared to the no change alternative is likely to be minimal. Alternative 2 combines the current early and late season regulatory actions into a single process. Regulatory proposals will be developed using biological data from the preceding year(s), model predictions, or most recently accumulated data that are available at the time the proposals are being formulated. Individual harvest strategies will be modified using either data from the previous year(s) or model predictions because the current year's data would not be available for many of the strategies. Considerable technical work will be necessary over a period of years to adjust the underlying biological models to the new regulatory time scale. During this transition period, harvest strategies and prescriptions will be modified to fit into the new regulatory schedule. These adjustments could be accomplished immediately upon adoption of the new process. Many existing regulatory prescriptions used for Canada geese and sandhill cranes currently work on this basis. The process will be somewhat less precise in some instances because population projections would be used instead of current-year status information. The use of population projections rather than current-year population estimates would add variability to the population estimate from which the regulations are based. However, the uncertainty associated with these status predictions will be accounted for and incorporated into the process. This uncertainty will not result in a disproportionately higher harvest rate for any stock, either annually or on a cumulative basis, because these regulations likely would become slightly more conservative due to the increased uncertainty of the population status. Additionally, under this alternative, the SRC will meet in March or April (exact dates would be determined in consultation with the four Flyway Councils). Proposed frameworks will be available for public review by early June. Final frameworks will be published by mid-August. The schedule proposed under Alternative 2 will allow 30-60 days for public input and comments (currently the comment period is as short as 10 days). The four Flyway Councils could meet only once instead of twice, and the SRC will meet twice a year, once in January and once in March-April, instead of the three times they currently convene. The reduced number of meetings could lower administrative costs by 40 percent per year and substantially lower the Service's carbon footprint due to a decrease in travel and a reduction in the costs associated with the additional meetings.
2. Frequency of Review and Adoption of Duck Regulatory Packages
Duck regulatory packages are the set of framework regulations that apply to the general duck hunting seasons. Packages include opening and closing dates, season lengths, daily bag limits, and shooting hours. Current regulatory packages contain a set of frameworks for each of the four flyways and a set of four regulatory alternatives: restrictive (relatively short seasons and low daily bag limits), moderate (intermediate season lengths and daily bag limits), liberal (longer seasons and higher daily bag limits), and closed. The differences in season lengths and daily bag limits among flyways reflect the historic differences in waterfowl abundance and hunter numbers in these regions. Each regulatory package has an associated target harvest rate, which is based on mallards since mallards are the most well-studied and most heavily harvested (nationally) of all duck species. Each year the adaptive harvest management (AHM) models are run, with the most up-to-date harvest survey data included, and one of the regulatory alternatives
Importantly, when employing the AHM approach, the regulatory packages should remain relatively constant over time, because the optimization process assumes that the expected harvest rates resulting from the various packages remains constant. However, the uncertainty in harvest rates from what is projected and what is realized in any given year is a component that is accounted for in the process; thus, there is room for modification. Recognizing the desire of many constituents to make adjustments to the basic packages, a regular process to review and incorporate possible modifications is necessary and appropriate. The intent, regardless of the alternative selected below, is to have the first open review and possible modification of these packages begin in the year following the finalization of the FSEIS.
Alternative 1: ( no change alternative ). Regulatory packages adopted annually.
Duck regulatory packages are currently reviewed and adopted on an annual basis (see above). This would continue under this alternative.
Alternative 2: ( preferred alternative ). Establish regulatory packages for 5-year periods.
A description of duck regulatory packages is provided above. Under this alternative, the set of regulatory packages would be adopted for a 5-year period instead of annually, and changes would be considered at the time of renewal. The first review period would coincide with the initial implementation of the proposed action.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 2 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 2 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the 2015-16 regulations cycle or as soon as is technically feasible.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The Service concludes that Alternative 2 allowing review and adoption of regulatory packages every 5 years instead of annually is the best course of action balancing the need for consistent regulatory actions with the need for occasional adjustments. Adopting such a process will result in limited impacts on population status. Limiting changes to a 5-year interval is expected to result in an improvement over the current situation. The improvement should result because of the reduced variability in harvest rates that are expected when compared to allowing annual changes in the basic duck regulatory packages. Adopting packages annually as is presently done could increase variability, if the packages are actually changed annually. In fact, and in recognition of this problem, the Service has kept packages stable, although it reviews and adopts them each year. Alternative 2 will minimize the frequency of changes, thereby improving the learning potential under the AHM process, while still affording the option to adjust packages at regular intervals in recognition of changing bird status, environmental conditions, and socioeconomic changes.
3. Stock-Specific Harvest Strategies
Harvest strategies have been developed for stocks deemed not biologically capable of sustaining the same harvest levels that jointly managed stocks are capable of sustaining, or whose migration and distribution do not conform to patterns followed by the most commonly harvested species. There also is a desire to have a known set of conditions under which regulations would be changed for species covered by these strategies. The formal strategies provide this information by describing abundance levels and other demographic factors that would result in changes in harvest opportunity. Stock-specific harvest strategies formally adopted by the Service include those for American black ducks, canvasbacks, northern pintails, and scaup. In addition, an interim harvest strategy was recently developed and proposed for approval for mourning doves starting with the 2014-15 hunting season. A draft harvest strategy for wood ducks may be developed and considered for adoption in the future. The Service has adopted stock-specific strategies for ducks and mourning doves through the Federal Register process. Harvest guidelines for goose, swan and crane populations are addressed in flyway-specific management plans. Although these harvest guidelines are not formally adopted by the Service, the Service gives strong consideration to these plans when formulating annual regulatory proposals.
Alternative 1: ( no change, preferred alternative ). Continue use of currently employed stock-specific harvest strategies and develop new strategies when necessary.
Alternative 2: Significantly reduce the use of stock-specific harvest strategies.
This action would be accomplished by reducing general seasons to a structure that can be sustained by more stocks than the existing aggregate structures are able to sustain. For example, a simplified set of regulations for general duck seasons would result in a reduction in the number of separate harvest strategies that would be needed for ducks (e.g., duck limits overall would be reduced to those appropriate for scaup or northern pintails, whichever of these required the most conservative regulations).
Alternative 3: Expand the use of stock-specific harvest strategies to include most individual stocks.
This alternative would lead to additional stock-specific regulations that would eventually result in separate hunting seasons for most, if not all, recognized stocks for which harvest is allowed.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 1 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 1 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the 2015-16 regulations cycle or as soon as is technically feasible.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The Service concludes that the use of stock-specific harvest strategies protects individual species deemed biologically incapable of sustaining the harvest levels imposed by the current AHM process based on mallard status.
4. Special Regulations
Special regulations differ from stock-specific harvest strategies because they entail additional days of harvest opportunity outside the established frameworks for general seasons, but within the 107-day limit mandated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Special regulations are employed to provide additional harvest opportunity on overabundant stocks, stocks that are lightly harvested and can sustain greater harvest pressure when harvest can be achieved without appreciable impacts to nontarget species, and/or stocks whose migration and distribution provide opportunities outside the time period in which regular seasons are held. An important tenet of special regulations is that harvest pressure can be effectively directed primarily at target stocks that can be temporally and geographically isolated so as to avoid nontarget take. Currently, special regulations include: (1) September teal seasons in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways; (2) September teal and wood duck seasons in Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee; (3) the special sea duck season along the Atlantic Coast; and (4) special regulations on overabundant resident Canada geese. The Service has required that States implementing special regulations conduct experiments that assess the biological impacts of those seasons on both target and non-target stocks.
Alternative 1: ( no change alternative ). No change to currently allowed special regulations.
Maintain requirement for experimental evaluation of any proposed new special regulations and periodic assessments of the effects of special regulations to determine whether they are still justified.
Alternative 2: ( preferred alternative ). Eliminate experimental evaluation requirements for special regulations on overabundant resident Canada geese, except for areas where previous evaluations indicate an unacceptable level of take of migrant Canada geese, and in areas which have not conducted evaluations where one could reasonably expect an unacceptable level of take of migrant Canada geese (e.g., areas in northern States). All special Canada goose seasons require Flyway Council endorsement, and Flyway Councils may request evaluations as part of the approval process if they believe such evaluations to be warranted. Additionally, if conditions are believed to have changed, new evaluations can be conducted for areas in which prior evaluations failed with respect to the take of migrant Canada geese. The Service may periodically re-evaluate existing special regulations for other species/stocks on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are still justified, and will continue to require experiments for any other types of new special regulations. The Service will undertake a review of the Special harvest regulations in place for sea ducks.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 2 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 2 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the 2015-16 regulations cycle or as soon following as is technically feasible.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The Service concludes that several target populations will benefit from the biological review that would determine if special harvest opportunities were still warranted. In particular, special seasons for sea ducks and teal will be considered. Elimination of experimental season evaluations for overabundant resident Canada geese is not expected to alter their population status, but is expected to expedite actions designed to increase harvest of these birds. Sufficient experimentation already has been conducted, and the results indicate that these seasons will not endanger the resident geese. There are some risks to non-target migrant Canada goose populations; however, recent studies provide sufficient data regarding select areas where such seasons could pose a problem for non-target goose populations and those areas will be addressed on a case-by-case basis to ensure non-resident stocks are not negatively impacted.
Alternative 2 could lead to increased administrative costs associated with the re-evaluation of the existing special regulations. The Service has historically reviewed special regulations when changes in status or environmental conditions suggest there is a reason to do so. This alternative continues that practice. Although there could be an initial increase in cost associated with such re-evaluations, there could also be financial savings associated with elimination of the experimental evaluation requirement for most resident Canada goose special regulations. Depending on findings, the results of those evaluations could lead to expansion of one or more of the current special duck seasons or establishment of additional special seasons, either of which would result in more hunting opportunity and the associated economic benefits. On the other hand, evaluations could lead to reduction or elimination of one or more current special seasons, resulting in reduced hunting opportunity and some negative impacts on local economies. Expediting the approval of additional special regulations for resident Canada geese would increase harvest and result in fewer of those birds, which in turn would reduce crop depredation and other conflicts caused by their overabundance.
5. Management Scale for the Harvest of Migratory Birds
Management scale is defined as the geographic area in which stocks are monitored and harvest is managed. Determining the appropriate scale of harvest management is important for two primary reasons: (1) Scale determines the degree to which harvest regulations can differ geographically, and (2) management at smaller geographic scales commits management agencies to increased monitoring efforts
Alternative 1: ( no change, preferred alternative ). Maintain the current scale of management for all migratory bird species.
Under this alternative, ducks would be managed by flyway on the basis of three mallard stocks: Eastern, western, and mid-continent. For duck species that are covered by harvest strategies (e.g., pintails, scaup, and canvasbacks), the management scale would continue to be continental. New strategies would include geographic definitions of the applicable scale as part of their descriptions. American woodcock would continue to be managed as two units and mourning doves as three. Sandhill cranes, geese, tundra swans, and band-tailed pigeons would be managed as the currently defined individual populations. American black duck and wood duck seasons would remain as currently implemented. All geographic scales would be subject to periodic review and revision when new information becomes available, or if population distributions shift markedly in the future. This approach provides considerable allowances for differences in hunting opportunity based on geographic differences in population status and distribution, yet limits the number of different stocks that require individual monitoring to a manageable level.
Alternative 2: Expand the existing management scale by reverting to a single continental management scale for population monitoring of ducks, mourning doves, and American woodcock. The existing harvest-management units (e.g., flyways, management units) would be maintained to account for regional differences in hunter numbers and harvest pressure.
This alternative would establish a continental scale for the monitoring of migratory game birds and harvest management decisions. Regional differences in population status and trends would not be taken into account when making regulatory decisions. The only geographic differences in harvest opportunity would be based on the traditional differences that have been established among flyways and among/between ducks, mourning dove, tundra swan, and American woodcock management units.
Alternative 3: Work to further geographically refine the scale of duck harvest management, and maintain existing management scales for other stocks.
Monitoring programs would be established wherever sufficient biological evidence suggests further geographic refinement is possible for any stocks. The monitoring programs would allow for differential harvest regulations within the defined range of each stock. Conceptually, this would greatly increase the number of stocks for which separate regulations would be established independently. This could include subdividing the traditional management units of flyways (in the case of ducks), or the management units, in the case of mourning doves or American woodcock.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 1 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 1 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the 2015-16 regulations cycle or as soon following as is technically feasible.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The Service concludes that Alternative 1 ensures sustainable continental populations of mallards and other duck species that are the subjects of species-specific harvest strategies, because those harvest strategies are supported by adequate population size, harvest monitoring programs, and other relevant population statistics. Likewise, geese, mourning doves, woodcock, sandhill cranes, tundra swans, and band-tailed pigeons are monitored at their current management scales to ensure sustainability. However, if distinct subpopulations exist within any of the currently defined populations/species, and have demographics that differ greatly from the management-scale-wide average, those subpopulations could undergo undetected growth or decline under Alternative 1. Coots, gallinules, moorhens, snipe, and rails will be managed at the continental scale under this alternative. Alternative 1 maintains the traditional approach of allowing for recognition of geographic variation in harvest opportunity while maintaining a relatively limited number of geographic units that must be monitored and managed separately. Costs of monitoring and managing at the current scale have been considered acceptable to the public and the cooperating management agencies. To date, the level of hunting opportunity that this alternative affords has been adequate to satisfy migratory bird hunters in most years. This approach represents a compromise between recognition of existing natural variation in abundance and distribution with the costs associated with managing at more refined geographic scales, such as is considered in Alternative 3 for this component.
6. Zones and Split Seasons
A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a contiguous boundary, for which an independent season may be selected. A split is a situation where a season is broken into two or more segments with a closed period between segments. The combination of zones and split seasons allows a State to maximize harvest opportunity within the Federal frameworks without exceeding the number of days allowed for a given season. Guidelines for the use of zones and splits have been formalized for ducks and doves. For these species, States select zone/split configurations for 5-year periods. After each 5 year period, States have the opportunity to change their configurations within the provisions of the guidelines. The use of zones and split seasons for other migratory game birds is handled on a case-by-case basis. Refer to Chapter 2 of the FSEIS for a more in-depth description of zones and splits.
Alternative 1: ( no change, preferred alternative ). Continue the current use of zones and split seasons and the 5-year schedule for consideration of changes for ducks and doves within established zones/splits guidelines. Goose and crane zones may be adjusted annually.
Alternative 2: Allow annual adjustments to zone/split-season configurations for all migratory game birds.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 1 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 1 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The Service recognizes that the use of zones and split seasons results in some additional harvest, but the incremental impacts of each State's existing zone and split season configuration on the overall harvest of ducks and doves are not anticipated to be significant at the population level. However, most duck and dove populations are stable or increasing, indicating that within the context of other framework regulations, current zone and split season configurations are not adversely impacting those populations. When reductions in harvest are necessary, they are accomplished through framework regulations, taking into account the effects of existing zone and split season configurations. Thus, Alternative 1 is not expected to have any measurable impacts on target duck and dove populations compared to current practice. The use of zones and split seasons enables States to better maximize hunting opportunity, thereby encouraging participation in migratory bird hunting and resulting in increased benefits to local economies. Alternative 1 would maintain those benefits at current levels. Limiting the frequency of potential changes to the proposed 5-year interval for zone/split-season configurations continues to be somewhat less responsive to public desires for adjustments, but there is no evidence that this has impacted hunter participation negatively. States incur some costs associated with contacting their hunting publics to assess their desires with regard to zone locations and dates for split seasons, primarily through public meetings and surveys.
7. Subsistence-Harvest Regulatory Process
Regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds provide a framework that enables the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska. These regulations are subject to annual review and are developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. This annual review process establishes regulations that prescribe frameworks for dates when harvesting of birds may occur, species that can be taken, and methods and means that are excluded from use.
Alternative 1: ( no change, preferred alternative ). Allow a spring-summer subsistence hunting season with regulations necessary to ensure the long-term conservation of the migratory bird resource.
Under this alternative, the Service would allow a spring-summer harvest of migratory birds. The harvest would, to the extent possible, be consistent with the customary and traditional subsistence harvest of migratory birds by Alaskan indigenous inhabitants, while providing for the long-term sustained use of the migratory bird resource. Egg gathering would be consistent with the customary and traditional subsistence harvest of eggs by Alaskan indigenous inhabitants. Only bird populations that are determined to be capable of supporting this sustained use would be open to harvest.
In general, the Service will consider the following actions when establishing subsistence hunting regulations consistent with the long-term conservation of species open to subsistence harvest. The species open to harvest will be determined annually based on conservation status and a determination that harvest is consistent with long-term conservation. The secondary consideration of the Service in establishing subsistence harvest regulations will be to preserve the customary and traditional practices of the rural residents of Alaska to the maximum extent possible after ensuring the long-term conservation of species harvested. The third consideration of the Service in establishing subsistence harvest regulations will be to determine that the proposed harvest is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as modified by amendments to the Protocols of Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada and Mexico. A summary of the potential management tools that could be employed to regulate subsistence harvest under these actions is as follows:
(A) Closures to protect nesting birds. For all species, the Service will require at least a 30 day closure to protect nesting birds. In-season closures of a minimum of 30 days will be set for each region to protect nesting birds. The closed period will apply every year; however, the dates of the closures may be altered to adapt to changes in the nesting cycle of birds. Regions may have different closures for different taxonomic groups. Closures may be set in advance in regulation or may be set in-season, based upon data collected by field biologists and subsistence users. In the case of closures set in-season, the dates will be announced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director (or designee) and then broadcast widely.
(B) Species closures to all harvest. Seasons for certain species may be closed when there is a conservation concern. Harvest will be resumed when the species recovers to a status sufficient to ensure sustainability.
(C) Species closures to egg-gathering. Species may be closed to egg-gathering when there is a conservation concern. Egg harvest may be resumed when the species recovers to a status sufficient to ensure sustainability.
(D) Special area closure. A defined area may be closed to all harvest of a species when there is a conservation concern. The closure may be lifted when the species has recovered. A defined area also may be closed to all harvest of a particular species when the species in question has not been traditionally harvested or when the Regional Council, which represents the land in question, recommends the closure.
(E) Early season closure. A season may be closed early for a defined area to protect birds staging during migration when there is a conservation concern or the birds are vulnerable to excessive harvest.
(F) Establishment of a community bag limit. A community or regional bag limit may be implemented only in the case in which the affected species would otherwise be closed to all harvest.
(G) Special opening for a specified area. Special openings (i.e., egg gathering) may be created to allow for the customary and traditional use of a migratory bird species in areas that are not otherwise eligible to participate in subsistence harvest seasons. Such areas will be recommended by Regional Councils, and such recommendations will be based on evidence of customary and traditional subsistence harvest practices.
(H) Individual bag limits. Personal harvester bag limits may be imposed in the case of a declining population of a species that would otherwise be closed, or an increasing population that is closed to harvest and would not otherwise be open. Personal bag limits will be employed only after consultation with respective regional management bodies affected through the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (AMBCC) process described in Appendix 6 of the FEIS.
Alternative 2: Open a spring-summer subsistence hunting season that incorporates fall-winter hunting season regulations (e.g., bag limits, shooting hours).
Under this alternative, the Service would replace the current spring-summer subsistence hunting season regulations with regulations consistent with the fall harvest. Methods and means required for fall-winter hunting would be adopted, daily bag limits for individual hunters would be imposed, and fall regulations concerning exchange and transport of birds and bird parts would apply. Egg gathering would, to the extent possible, be consistent with the customary and traditional subsistence harvest of eggs by Alaskan indigenous inhabitants.
The regulations at title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 20, subpart C (Taking), apply in this alternative with the exception of closed seasons (§ 20.22). 50 CFR 20, subpart D (Possession), also applies with the exception of § 20.32. The final frameworks approved by the Secretary of the Interior for the Pacific Flyway season would apply with the following exceptions: (1) Shooting hours would not be specified; (2) the season would be from April 2 through August 31; and (3) the closed periods to protect nesting birds described in Alternative 1 would apply.
Decision: The Service has selected Alternative 1 as described in the FSEIS for implementation. Alternative 1 is the most effective alternative for addressing key issues identified during the planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the Service and States. Implementation of the preferred alternative is targeted for the 2015-16 regulations cycle or as soon following as is technically feasible.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision: In reaching this decision, the Service reviewed and considered the following: Impacts identified in Chapter 6 of the draft and FSEIS; relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities presented by agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the planning process, including comments on the draft and FSEIS; and other relevant factors, including statutory and regulatory guidance.
The preamble of the 1995 Protocol to the Migratory Bird Treaty Amendment states, “. . . it is not the intent of this Protocol to cause significant increases in the take of species of migratory birds relative to their continental population sizes.” The use of household surveys of subsistence harvest areas will enable tracking of participation in subsistence harvest activities and the extent of the take. Should the harvest significantly increase relative to continental populations, then regulatory actions would be taken to keep harvest in compliance with the 1995 Protocol.
Under Alternative 1, law enforcement efforts will be carried out commensurate with threats to migratory bird populations to ensure that compliance is achieved to maintain harvest at prescribed levels. The subsistence economies of rural areas will continue to benefit from an important food resource which is traditionally shared among members of a community. In addition, this alternative promotes the establishment of regulations recommended by the AMBCC which, along with the regional management bodies, is the embodiment of the co-management process. Greater compliance with regulations developed through the co-management process is more likely than with Alternative 2. By being part of the regulatory process, subsistence hunters, and those who share in the harvest, will have a sense of ownership, leading to greater compliance. An example of how this has worked in the past is the population recovery of cackling Canada geese that nest on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, in Alaska. The institution of the Hooper Bay agreement in advance of the Migratory Bird Treaty Amendment led to reduced subsistence and reduced fall-winter harvests of cackling Canada geese and helped the population recover from a low of about 25,000 birds to the current population size of approximately 200,000. Participation in the regulatory process also is anticipated to result in greater participation in the harvest survey. Broader coverage of the survey would lead to more accurate harvest data because it would include the harvest of more of the subsistence hunter population.
Avoiding and Minimizing Environmental Harm
The above seven components of the annual regulatory process are designed to continue and improve the long-standing Federal process for establishing regulations for hunting migratory birds. These components continue the process that has maintained this harvest consistent with the long-term conservation of the species and populations that are harvested. The preferred alternatives selected for these components will reduce the administrative burden and thus reduce the carbon footprint by both Federal and State government agencies by reducing the number of meetings conducted annually to establish these regulations. In addition, changing the timing of the meetings will now allow for a greater opportunity for public input and consideration of the proposed annual regulations. The changed process will also allow for periodic modifications of the underlying regulatory packages at 5-year intervals to better address potential changes in environmental conditions caused by factors other than hunting (i.e., climate change). These changes are possible due to improved technical understanding gained through decades of monitoring and assessment of these biological systems. This process will not alter the continued development and improvement of such understanding of the biological systems, as monitoring and assessment will continue on an annual basis.
Public Involvement
Scoping is the initial stage of the EIS process used to design the extent and influence of an action. On September 8, 2005, the Service published a notice of intent to prepare a SEIS on the hunting of migratory birds under the authority of the MBTA (70 FR 53376). On March 9, 2006, the Service subsequently announced a total of 12 public meetings to be held across the United States to accept public and agency comment on the scope and relevant issues that should be addressed in the SEIS (71 FR 12216). In addition to these public meetings, the Service established a Web site to receive electronic comments and solicited written comments. The Service also announced that all comments received from the initiation of this process on September 8, 2005 until May 30, 2006 would be considered in the development of the SEIS. Subsequent to the conclusion of the scoping process a draft FSEIS was developed based on the input received. The draft FSEIS was released for public comment on June 7, 2010 and comments were accepted until March 31, 2011. All comments on the draft FSEIS were carefully considered in the preparation of the FSEIS and the selection of the preferred alternatives for the seven regulatory components considered.
Findings Required by Other Laws and Executive Orders
Please see the Other Required Determinations section of this document.
For Further Information
Questions about the FSEIS may be directed to Robert Trost, Pacific Flyway Representative, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Portland, OR 97232; phone number (503) 231-6162, fax robert_trost@fws.gov.
Supporting References
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the hunting of Migratory Birds: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 296 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the hunting of Migratory Birds: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 418 pages. Note:
This RoD and supporting references are available for public review from the Pacific Flyway Representative, Division of Migratory Bird Management at (503) 231-6162, or the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, at (703) 358-1714. Alternately, you may write to: Pacific Flyway Representative, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection requirement that require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and assigned the following OMB control numbers:
• 1018-0010—Mourning Dove Call Count Survey (expires 4/30/2015).
• 1018-001—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires 4/30/2015).
• 1018-0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 4/30/2015). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
Other Required Determinations
Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in earlier proposed rules; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our April 9, and June 14, 2013, proposed rules (78 FR 21200 and 78 FR 35844):
• Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563);
• Endangered Species Act;
• Regulatory Flexibility Act;
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
• Executive Orders 12630, 12988, 13175, 13132, and 13211.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2013-14 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: July 18, 2013. Rachel Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed Regulations Frameworks for 2013-14 Early Hunting Seasons on Certain Migratory Game Birds
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following proposed frameworks, which prescribe season lengths, bag limits, shooting hours, and outside dates within which States may select hunting seasons for certain migratory game birds between September 1, 2013, and March 10, 2014. These frameworks are summarized below.
General
Dates: All outside dates noted below are inclusive.
Shooting and Hawking (taking by falconry) Hours: Unless otherwise specified, from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset daily.
Possession Limits: Unless otherwise specified, possession limits are three times the daily bag limit.
Permits: For some species of migratory birds, the Service authorizes the use of permits to regulate harvest or monitor their take by sport hunters, or both. In many cases (e.g., tundra swans, some sandhill crane populations), the Service determines the amount of harvest that may be taken during hunting seasons during its formal regulations-setting process, and the States then issue permits to hunters at levels predicted to result in the amount of take authorized by the Service. Thus, although issued by States, the permits would not be valid unless the Service approved such take in its regulations.
These Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take migratory birds at levels specified in the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferrable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
Flyways and Management Units
Waterfowl Flyways
Atlantic Flyway —includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Mississippi Flyway —includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
Central Flyway —includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide).
Pacific Flyway —includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.
Management Units
Mourning Dove Management Units
Eastern Management Unit —All States east of the Mississippi River, and Louisiana.
Central Management Unit —Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
Western Management Unit —Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Woodcock Management Regions
Eastern Management Region —Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Central Management Region —Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Other geographic descriptions are contained in a later portion of this document.
Definitions
Dark geese: Canada geese, white-fronted geese, brant (except in Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, and the Atlantic Flyway), and all other goose species, except light geese.
Light geese: Snow (including blue) geese and Ross's geese.
Waterfowl Seasons in the Atlantic Flyway
In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, where Sunday hunting is prohibited Statewide by State law, all Sundays are closed to all take of migratory waterfowl (including mergansers and coots).
Special September Teal Season
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and September 30, an open season on all species of teal may be selected by the following States in areas delineated by State regulations:
Atlantic Flyway —Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Mississippi Flyway —Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Central Flyway —Colorado (part), Kansas, Nebraska (part), New Mexico (part), Oklahoma, and Texas.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 16 consecutive hunting days in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. The daily bag limit is 6 teal.
Shooting Hours:
Atlantic Flyway —One-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
Mississippi and Central Flyways —One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except in the States of Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio, where the hours are from sunrise to sunset.
Special September Duck Seasons
Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee: In lieu of a special September teal season, a 5-consecutive-day season may be selected in September. The daily bag limit may not exceed 4 teal and wood ducks in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be wood ducks.
Iowa: Iowa may hold up to 5 days of its regular duck hunting season in September. All ducks that are legal during the regular duck season may be taken during the September segment of the season. The September season segment may commence no earlier than the Saturday nearest September 20 (September 21). The daily bag and possession limits will be the same as those in effect last year but are subject to change during the late-season regulations process. The remainder of the regular duck season may not begin before October 10.
Special Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days
Outside Dates: States may select 2 days per duck-hunting zone, designated as “Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days,” in addition to their regular duck seasons. The days must be held outside any regular duck season on a weekend, holidays, or other non-school days when youth hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate. The days may be held up to 14 days before or after any regular duck-season frameworks or within any split of a regular duck season, or within any other open season on migratory birds.
Daily Bag Limits: The daily bag limits may include ducks, geese, mergansers, coots, and gallinules and will be the same as those allowed in the regular season. Flyway species and area restrictions will remain in effect.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
Participation Restrictions: Youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger. In addition, an adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth hunter into the field. This adult may not duck hunt but may participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth day.
Scoters, Eiders, and Long-Tailed Ducks (Atlantic Flyway)
Outside Dates: Between September 15 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 107 days, with a daily bag limit of 7, singly or in the aggregate, of the listed sea duck species, of which no more than 4 may be scoters.
Daily Bag Limits During the Regular Duck Season: Within the special sea duck areas, during the regular duck season in the Atlantic Flyway, States may choose to allow the above sea duck limits in addition to the limits applying to other ducks during the regular duck season. In all other areas, sea ducks may be taken only during the regular open season for ducks and are part of the regular duck season daily bag (not to exceed 4 scoters) and possession limits.
Areas: In all coastal waters and all waters of rivers and streams seaward from the first upstream bridge in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York; in any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any tidal waters of any bay which are separated by at least 1 mile of open water from any shore, island, and emergent vegetation in New Jersey, South Carolina, and Georgia; and in any waters of the Atlantic Ocean and in any tidal waters of any bay which are separated by at least 800 yards of open water from any shore, island, and emergent vegetation in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia; and provided that any such areas have been described, delineated, and designated as special sea duck hunting areas under the hunting regulations adopted by the respective States.
Special Early Canada Goose Seasons
Atlantic Flyway
General Seasons
A Canada goose season of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected for the Eastern Unit of Maryland. Seasons not to exceed 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected for Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York (Long Island Zone only), North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Seasons may not exceed 25 days during September 1-25 in the remainder of the Flyway. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Daily Bag Limits: Not to exceed 15 Canada geese.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during any general season, shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Mississippi Flyway
General Seasons
Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected, except in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, where the season may not extend beyond September 10, and in Minnesota, where a season of up to 22 days during September 1-22 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese, except in designated areas of Minnesota where the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
A Canada goose season of up to 10 consecutive days during September 1-
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Central Flyway
General Seasons
In Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas, Canada goose seasons of up to 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected. In Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese, except in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 8 Canada geese and in North Dakota and South Dakota, where the daily bag limit may not exceed 15 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Pacific Flyway
General Seasons
California may select a 9-day season in Humboldt County during the period September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 2.
Colorado may select a 9-day season during the period of September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 4.
Oregon may select a special Canada goose season of up to 15 days during the period September 1-15. In addition, in the NW Goose Management Zone in Oregon, a 15-day season may be selected during the period September 1-20. Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Idaho may select a 7-day season during the period September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 2.
Washington may select a special Canada goose season of up to 15 days during the period September 1-15. Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Wyoming may select an 8-day season on Canada geese during the period September 1-15. This season is subject to the following conditions:
A. Where applicable, the season must be concurrent with the September portion of the sandhill crane season.
B. A daily bag limit of 3, with season and possession limits of 9, will apply to the special season.
Areas open to hunting of Canada geese in each State must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Regular Goose Seasons
Regular goose seasons may open as early as September 11 in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and September 16 in Wisconsin and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Season lengths, bag and possession limits, and other provisions will be established during the late-season regulations process.
Sandhill Cranes
Regular Seasons in the Mississippi Flyway
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28.
Hunting Seasons: A season not to exceed 37 consecutive days may be selected in the designated portion of northwestern Minnesota (Northwest Goose Zone).
Daily Bag Limit: 2 sandhill cranes.
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Experimental Seasons in the Mississippi Flyway
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and January 31.
Hunting Seasons: A season not to exceed 30 consecutive days may be selected in Kentucky and a season not to exceed 60 consecutive days may be selected in Tennessee.
Daily Bag Limit: Not to exceed 2 daily and 2 per season in Kentucky. Not to exceed 3 daily and 3 per season in Tennessee.
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Other Provisions: Numbers of permits, open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons must be consistent with the management plan and approved by the Mississippi Flyway Council.
Regular Seasons in the Central Flyway
Outside Dates: Between September 1 and February 28.
Hunting Seasons: Seasons not to exceed 37 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of Texas (Area 2). Seasons not to exceed 58 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of the following States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Seasons not to exceed 93 consecutive days may be selected in designated portions of the following States: New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Daily Bag Limits: 3 sandhill cranes, except 2 sandhill cranes in designated portions of North Dakota (Area 2) and Texas (Area 2).
Permits: Each person participating in the regular sandhill crane season must have a valid Federal or State sandhill crane hunting permit.
Special Seasons in the Central and Pacific Flyways
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [78 FR 212 Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Referendum Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-30915.md)
- [78 FR 275 Airworthiness Directives; REIMS Aviation S.A. Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31602.md)
- [78 FR 1166 Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services in the H Block-Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00157.md)
- [78 FR 1193 Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules; Notification](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31623.md)
- [78 FR 1598 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31499.md)
- [78 FR 1624 Fall 2012 Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31502.md)
- [78 FR 1632 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31504.md)
- [78 FR 1652 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31512.md)
- [78 FR 1690 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31515.md)
- [78 FR 1765 Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators Installed on Transport Category Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00238.md)
- [78 FR 1792 Special Local Regulations, Stuart Sailfish Regatta, Indian River; Stuart, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00276.md)
- [78 FR 1799 Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911 Applications](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00159.md)
- [78 FR 2249 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Proposed Rule To Implement a Targeted Acadian Redfish Fishery for Sector Vessels; Reopening of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00345.md)
- [78 FR 2340 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Water Heaters and Commercial Water Heaters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00483.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-17876. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.